The answer seems to be, at its simplest level, to create choices.

Quote:

---

The answer seems to be, at its simplest level, to create choices.

---

dermdoc said:

---

To glorify God.

---

I like this, its short and sweet and was what I was told as a child.
It might even be true - especially if one has a liberal definition of what is God.

My remark about choices was an attempt to simplify and sum up the video,
I'm not trying to attack anyone's faith.

So the universe has no intention or purpose but maybe it still has a purpose (more complexity)? As she said, there has to be intelligence for their to be purpose. Either there is a God (or the universe itself is god, etc) or it's all a cosmic mistake and there is no purpose. I don't see how there can possibly be an in between.

Because He is who He is…it's beyond my comprehension…

DripDeW23 said:

---

---

Perfection

42

Douglas Adams and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy used that as a punchline.
Adams was too liberal for my taste but still a lot funnier than the cussing comedian above who basically says there is no such thing as nothing at the same time he says God created the Universe out of nothing.
The whole point is we are trying to figure out what came before the universe, how it formed, and what comes next - and if there is a purpose depends.

I would understand how this would be weird to think about, especially from a human perspective. I've always looked at it more so as a painting. You don't see a beautiful painting and praise the painting, you praise the painter. In that way the painting brings the painter praise. It exists to evoke some sort of positive effect in the viewer so it would only be just that when that painting makes you happy you would desire to praise the painter… so to me saying the universe exists to give Glory to God is true but incomplete since God made the world out of Love for Love.

Quote:

---

Or is it worth asking why?

---

It is worth asking why, and I ask it all of the time. However, I am convinced that we cannot ever know the answer fully, not being God (and thus not having all of the facts or the mind to understand them, even if I did have the knowledge).

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

To glorify God.

---

I remember being given this answer in Sunday school when I was a kid and finding the answer unsettling I don't mean to sound snarky. . . . but . . . . God created the universe to glorify Himself? God was just hanging out in a different plane of existence thinking to himself, "you know, I really need some more glory. So, I should create this universe as a monument to my greatness."

Doesn't that seem strange? Or is it worth asking why?

---

Or snarky at all. I have no idea of the answer to your question.

I believe that God is so good and powerful that things like the universe are created simply to manifest those traits.

DripDeW23 said:

---

I would understand how this would be weird to think about, especially from a human perspective. I've always looked at it more so as a painting. You don't see a beautiful painting and praise the painting, you praise the painter. In that way the painting brings the painter praise. It exists to evoke some sort of positive effect in the viewer so it would only be just that when that painting makes you happy you would desire to praise the painter… so to me saying the universe exists to give Glory to God is true but incomplete since God made the world out of Love for Love.

---

Okay, but I don't normally associate an artists motivation with self glorification. The painting is an expression of the artist, but the artist does not create it for the purpose of demonstrating to others how great they are.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

DripDeW23 said:

---

I would understand how this would be weird to think about, especially from a human perspective. I've always looked at it more so as a painting. You don't see a beautiful painting and praise the painting, you praise the painter. In that way the painting brings the painter praise. It exists to evoke some sort of positive effect in the viewer so it would only be just that when that painting makes you happy you would desire to praise the painter… so to me saying the universe exists to give Glory to God is true but incomplete since God made the world out of Love for Love.

---

Okay, but I don't normally associate an artists motivation with self glorification. The painting is an expression of the artist, but the artist does not create it for the purpose of demonstrating to others how great they are.

---

That's why I don't like the "to glorify God" explanation. I believe that God created the universe because in His infinite wisdom He knew it was better to have the material universe than not. He gifted us a chance at existence and love rather than not because it was "better" (however He would qualify that)

kurt vonnegut said:

---

DripDeW23 said:

---

I would understand how this would be weird to think about, especially from a human perspective. I've always looked at it more so as a painting. You don't see a beautiful painting and praise the painting, you praise the painter. In that way the painting brings the painter praise. It exists to evoke some sort of positive effect in the viewer so it would only be just that when that painting makes you happy you would desire to praise the painter… so to me saying the universe exists to give Glory to God is true but incomplete since God made the world out of Love for Love.

---

Okay, but I don't normally associate an artists motivation with self glorification. The painting is an expression of the artist, but the artist does not create it for the purpose of demonstrating to others how great they are.

---

To glorify God is our purpose. It's not necessarily the reason God created everything which I don't think we can answer.

You're right, I think when people answer why with "to glorify God" it's more accurately applied to the creation not the creator. God created out of Love, it is just then for his creation to Love and glorify him. I exist to glorify God because of all he has given me. I was made to love and have relationship with him.

So, we (God) had a static situation, an unchanging universe.
By exercising a choice, a variable was introduced and a great changes begin.
How could this happen if there was no change is the mystery and
saying God decided answers the question as well as anything I can think of...
but the video lists a number theories by people much smarter than I am.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

To glorify God.

---

I remember being given this answer in Sunday school when I was a kid and finding the answer unsettling I don't mean to sound snarky. . . . but . . . . God created the universe to glorify Himself? God was just hanging out in a different plane of existence thinking to himself, "you know, I really need some more glory. So, I should create this universe as a monument to my greatness."

Doesn't that seem strange? Or is it worth asking why?

---

Oddly enough, I think the "glorify God" answer and the answer from the video are the same. Above all else God is love. To fully express that love to a maximal extent, God created the universe and us. That allows Him to love people who hate Him, which is the absolute greatest form of love.

But God can't just create people who hate him. God is also good, and those who hate good are evil. And if God created evil people, then He couldn't very well be good. But God can make beings that are in some way reflections of Him, in that they have agency, will, and choice. Some will choose to love God, and then God is glorified by that freely given love. Some will choose to hate God, and God is glorified by loving those that freely choose to hate Him. So the universe is designed to give us choice, and both choices glorify God.

Reality check:

If there is not God, there is no intent or purpose of our existence. Why should we continue to live?
If there is a God, then there is intent and purpose.


What is the purpose of the internal combustion engine?
One answer can be described by it's function? This answer is incomplete without the next question.
The other answer can be described by it's creator.

We cannot know the Creators intent or purpose unless He's explained it:

"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.



Rational explanation:

The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.


If God is love, and created a universe, wouldn't it be very odd if love did not exist in this creation?
What we observe on earth is that love is possible and occurs daily.
In order for love to exist, freedom must also exist.
Freedom risks creatures being able to hate and do evil.

This is the world we see. God created a world where love is possible and can be shared with Him and others.

God created the universe. Didnt God command Adam to go forth a name all his creations? Since we are descendants of Adam, dont we have a duty to explore and know/name God's creations throughout the universe?

Conclusion: Space X is on a mission from God.

Perhaps it doesn't have a purpose as we humans would like to brand? There are those that would likely know much more on an answer though. You will be hearing much more about them in the future.

DripDeW23 said:

---

---

Love this video.

Rusty Aha said:

---

For atheists and agnostics, does social justice and enabling social stagnation conflict with natural selection? It seems wokeness devolves humankind.

---

A lot of things we do can be said to conflict with natural selection. The fact that we don't let babies with disabilities just die, as an example. I'm curious as to why do you clearly want babies to die?

Rusty Aha said:

---

For atheists and agnostics, does social justice and enabling social stagnation conflict with natural selection? It seems wokeness devolves humankind.

---

Atheists and agnostics are actually really great at natural selection. In fact, the Western ones have completely eliminated Downs Syndrome in just a few short decades

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Rusty Aha said:

---

For atheists and agnostics, does social justice and enabling social stagnation conflict with natural selection? It seems wokeness devolves humankind.

---

Atheists and agnostics are actually really great at natural selection. In fact, the Western ones have completely eliminated Downs Syndrome in just a few short decades

---

I think you're being facetious, but have such societies actually "eliminated" Downs Syndrome or rather simply kill babies with it? In other words, has aborting babies with Downs Syndrome eliminated that risk from the gene pool? I'd be surprised if that were true.

As far as I know, there are no genetic risk factors for Down Syndrome. It's just a random thing that happens. And yes, I was being sarcastic. The rates of Down syndrome in Europe are the lowest in the world due to using abortion for eugenics

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Rusty Aha said:

---

For atheists and agnostics, does social justice and enabling social stagnation conflict with natural selection? It seems wokeness devolves humankind.

---

Atheists and agnostics are actually really great at natural selection. In fact, the Western ones have completely eliminated Downs Syndrome in just a few short decades

---

Okay, but those aren't 'real' atheists and agnostics.

Rongagin71 said:

---

The answer seems to be, at its simplest level, to create choices.

---

She fully recognizes a scientific point, or purpose for the universe, would be best explained by an intention. But where her logic becomes fatal is that her premise assumes that must come within the universe or that the universe "first needs to create someone who has intentions" that is capable of giving the universe intention. She's clearly stating that because its not a rational possibility. That would end up as a violation of the law of causality which will ultimately lead to a violation of the law of non contradiction. Instead, the only logical premise is that something had to create the universe to give it intention.

The truth of the matter is that her, Weinberg, Hawking are ultimately arguing for the self-existence of the universe. In that framework, which is logically fallible, you will never derive a scientific purpose for the universe to fit within it. Although I find it quite funny its right there under their noses the whole time when she talks about the mathematical constants that fit with what we observe, but they have covered their eyes and are now asking why they can't see.